6 ms·

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that everyone who went to the SEC and asked them if they could do something was told absolut

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that everyone who went to the SEC and asked them if they could do something was told absolutely not. The people who didn't ask seemed to be getting away with it. So everyone stopped asking. However that didn't change the facts of the situation. At some point even the mightiest ostrich must get rekt.

jedberg 4y ago
Coinbase has asked them many times though. The article even mentions this. They met 30 times to seek clarity on the rules.
- Alex3917 4y ago
  This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?
  - mfer 4y ago
    Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.
  - wslh 4y ago
    I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
      - wslh 4y ago
        I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
        wslh 4y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.
  - rekttrader 4y ago
    Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    They ought to. Giving advice is the difference between having the government work with the people, on the same side, and having it be an adversary. The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies. Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.
    - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
      SEC doesn't give legal advice because they don't make the laws. Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.
      - jedberg 4y ago
        The SEC enforces the law, and it should be totally normal for them to say "this is how we plan to enforce this law". By not saying so, they create a lot of unnecessary churn. Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"? They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.
rekttrader 4y ago
The sec is not a supervisory agency, they’re a regulator meaning they step in after the fact for investor protections. The sec had plenty of open sessions where folks in the industry would ask for guidance and yet it was not gotten because they don’t tell the capital or crypto markets what should be in the markets they’re here to pull down the things that shouldn’t be. The sec allows “junk bonds” if you disclose the risk, the credit default swap maybe shouldn’t exist but it does... and is one of the most heavily traded securities. Heck, you can buy VIX for CDS... let’s think about that for a second... that’s a mortgage, packed into a portfolio, that has a derivative, and that derivative’s volatility is tradeable. That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does. The difference is that most volume in crypto is fake, and the price is controlled by a small cartel of exchange owners and an $82B Bahamian counterfeiting operation whose 'bank' is run by the creator of Inspector Gadget. That's the risk that's not disclosed.
  - robopsychology 4y ago
    If the price is controlled why does it drop so much?
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      If you're the house, then you profit when you know where it's going. The bigger the move, the more profit you can make.
    - piva00 4y ago
      Those in the cartel need exit liquidity sometimes. It's manipulated, not 100% controlled.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
fallingknife 4y ago
Securities are legal and Coinbase is a licensed broker dealer which means they are allowed to sell securities if they are registered with the SEC. The SEC is saying that crypto is a security while simultaneously not allowing them to be registered as a security. So they are treating it like a security from an enforcement perspective, but not from a regulatory perspective. They can't have it both ways. It must either be a security, in which case the SEC can regulate it, and it can be legally sold by brokers, or it is not a security, in which case the SEC can fuck off because it isn't in their jurisdiction. They are trying to have it both ways, and that is clearly acting in bad faith.
- dgellow 4y ago
  So, you’re saying that Coinbase knowingly offered unregistered security. And acknowledged that’s not legal. The fact the SEC refuses these securities to be registered doesn’t negate the illegal offering of unregistered securities.
  - daedalus_f 4y ago
    If you look at the recent SEC filing, they present evidence Coinbase likely knew what they were doing was illegal and coached companies wanting to list coins on the exchange on how to remove “problematic language” from their promotional material that might make it too obvious they were selling unregistered securities.
    - dgellow 4y ago
      Yeah, I cannot really see how they can defend their position here. That will be an interesting case to follow, Coinbase legal team will have to be _creative_.
    - dlubarov 4y ago
      Where is this filing? Not sure what that would be since the SEC hasn't brought charges yet. I don't see an issue with advising companies on what language to use, given that language can absolutely affect whether a token is in fact a security, e.g. based on the "expectation of profit" prong of the Howey test.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 4y ago

Coinbase has asked them many times though. The article even mentions this. They met 30 times to seek clarity on the rules.

Alex3917 4y ago
This reminds me a lot of a different Armstrong repeatedly saying that he couldn’t be doping because he was the most drug-tested athlete in history. In reality, the law is perfectly clear and hasn’t changed in decades, so what would giving clarity even mean?
- mfer 4y ago
  Clarity can include explaining how some laws apply in situations relevant to Coinbase or crypto currencies. Sometimes dots need to be connected.
- latchkey 4y ago
  If the law is perfectly clear, is ETH a security or a commodity? Gensler can't even answer that question. https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003 https://twitter.com/sassal0x/status/1648338351832064003
femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Armstrong says they did, and says they met to discuss things like this. We will see what happened in reality during the course of the court case. I don't think it is wise to trust the words of any crypto actors.
- wslh 4y ago
  I don't agree with you. There are many actors in the crypto ecosystem and sadly the scammers and bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. Personally I was involved in helping representatives in writing laws to move forward. If there is no guidance you can build an organization that could be destroyed arbitrarily in one day. SEC had enough time... I don't want to exaggerate but it seems like the financial establishment is really worried, and not precisely about money laundering and corruption. Those use everything as a tool, it does not matter if it is crypto or your "5 star" bank.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > bad guys have, in general, better execution an exposure that the good ones. So much better that I take it purely on faith that there are decent people in that space. I have to take it on faith, because I haven't actually seen or heard from any of them and so have no evidence that they exist.
    - wslh 4y ago
      I consider others and my company, good actors in the space: think about the space critically and giving transparent feedback and scenarios between the skepticism and the utopia.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        And you may well be -- but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing. The space is generally so tainted that it's not unreasonable to assume the people in it aren't exactly good until proven otherwise.
        wslh 4y ago
        Logically speaking you are saying that there is no exist good people in the space. That is a really difficult assertion to probe. I am saying something simpler: there exist good people in the space. Then, you are saying "but I don't know you or your company, so I have no way of knowing.". Well, that is not my job, do your work if you want to change your mind. If you need help I can present you to good people but I assume you can do it by yourself. Also, again logically, saying that there is no good people in the space, we should first define good people in general. Not trying to sound pedantic but trying to show you that your assertion is about a lot of people, probably in the order or millions.
elliekelly 4y ago
The SEC doesn’t give out legal advice.
- rekttrader 4y ago
  Exactly, there here to step in when things go bad. This is regulatory overreach.
- true_religion 4y ago
  They ought to. Giving advice is the difference between having the government work with the people, on the same side, and having it be an adversary. The goal should be legal compliance and productive companies. Not clarifying what you will or will not prosecute simply creates unnecessary fear and distrust of the system. Think of all the crime that would not be committed if only the SEC said it was criminal before hand. Maybe thousands of people wouldn’t have lost money to crypto scams if there were greater clarity.
  - VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
    SEC doesn't give legal advice because they don't make the laws. Want legal advice? Talk to a lawyer. But if your council tells you it's OK to push some boundaries then don't be surprised if you get slapped. And if you don't like getting slapped then you can go to court. Which is exactly what is happening. Seems like the system is working as intended.
    - jedberg 4y ago
      The SEC enforces the law, and it should be totally normal for them to say "this is how we plan to enforce this law". By not saying so, they create a lot of unnecessary churn. Imagine you are outside a store, and there is a police officer outside. You ask them "If I go inside and take some bread off the shelf and walk out without paying, is that ok?". Should the officer say "talk to a lawyer" or should they say "I would arrest you on the way out"? They aren't offering legal advice, they are just telling you how they will enforce the law. And heck, maybe you'll go to court and get it overturned. But at least you know what enforcement actions will be taken.

rekttrader 4y ago

The sec is not a supervisory agency, they’re a regulator meaning they step in after the fact for investor protections. The sec had plenty of open sessions where folks in the industry would ask for guidance and yet it was not gotten because they don’t tell the capital or crypto markets what should be in the markets they’re here to pull down the things that shouldn’t be. The sec allows “junk bonds” if you disclose the risk, the credit default swap maybe shouldn’t exist but it does... and is one of the most heavily traded securities. Heck, you can buy VIX for CDS... let’s think about that for a second... that’s a mortgage, packed into a portfolio, that has a derivative, and that derivative’s volatility is tradeable. That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does.

arcticbull 4y ago
> That’s a FAAAAAAAAAAR more speculative asset than crypto and yet it still trades at higher volume than crypto does. The difference is that most volume in crypto is fake, and the price is controlled by a small cartel of exchange owners and an $82B Bahamian counterfeiting operation whose 'bank' is run by the creator of Inspector Gadget. That's the risk that's not disclosed.
- robopsychology 4y ago
  If the price is controlled why does it drop so much?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    If you're the house, then you profit when you know where it's going. The bigger the move, the more profit you can make.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Those in the cartel need exit liquidity sometimes. It's manipulated, not 100% controlled.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

fallingknife 4y ago

Securities are legal and Coinbase is a licensed broker dealer which means they are allowed to sell securities if they are registered with the SEC. The SEC is saying that crypto is a security while simultaneously not allowing them to be registered as a security. So they are treating it like a security from an enforcement perspective, but not from a regulatory perspective. They can't have it both ways. It must either be a security, in which case the SEC can regulate it, and it can be legally sold by brokers, or it is not a security, in which case the SEC can fuck off because it isn't in their jurisdiction. They are trying to have it both ways, and that is clearly acting in bad faith.

dgellow 4y ago
So, you’re saying that Coinbase knowingly offered unregistered security. And acknowledged that’s not legal. The fact the SEC refuses these securities to be registered doesn’t negate the illegal offering of unregistered securities.
- daedalus_f 4y ago
  If you look at the recent SEC filing, they present evidence Coinbase likely knew what they were doing was illegal and coached companies wanting to list coins on the exchange on how to remove “problematic language” from their promotional material that might make it too obvious they were selling unregistered securities.
  - dgellow 4y ago
    Yeah, I cannot really see how they can defend their position here. That will be an interesting case to follow, Coinbase legal team will have to be _creative_.
  - dlubarov 4y ago
    Where is this filing? Not sure what that would be since the SEC hasn't brought charges yet. I don't see an issue with advising companies on what language to use, given that language can absolutely affect whether a token is in fact a security, e.g. based on the "expectation of profit" prong of the Howey test.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]